Court to Gastonia: Cop can see accusations against him

Should police officers be entitled to learn the names of fellow employees or residents who file complaints about their job performance?

That’s the question at the center of an ongoing legal dispute between the city of Gastonia and one of its police detectives. Tuesday, the N.C. Court of Appeals ruled that Gastonia Police Detective David Wind has that right.

The panel upheld the decision of a trial court, which ruled in Wind’s favor in November 2011. The Court of Appeals ordered the city to turn over full copies of all personnel documents related to two complaints lodged against Wind more than four years ago.

To date, the city has refused to provide Wind with information that would name the two people who filed the complaints against him. The city has only handed over documents from Wind’s personnel file that are redacted, or blacked out, to obscure details that would identify the two complainants.

The city will now decide whether to appeal to the N.C. Supreme Court. City Attorney Ash Smith said that decision will be made after he consults with City Manager Ed Munn and Police Chief Stacy Conley.

“It’s just too early to tell,” Smith said.

Wind could not be reached for comment Tuesday. But his attorney, J. Michael McGuinness of Elizabethtown, who specializes in representing police officers in court cases, said he was pleased with the ruling.

“It reaffirms the rights of North Carolina public employees to simply obtain copies of personnel records which are developed about them,” he said. “Those records are vitally important for law enforcement officers to know when individuals make complaints about them.”

Two complaints

Wind was hired as a Gastonia patrol officer in March 2008. He previously worked for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and as a police detective in Coral Springs, Fla., according to court filings.

In fall 2008, two complaints were made against Wind with respect to a traffic stop he was involved in. One came from a fellow officer, and the other from a person who was involved in the stop, said court documents.

The person, who was carrying a gun at the time, complained that Wind exhibited “rudeness/force by a firearm” by disarming him and securing his weapon in the course of an investigation.

An unidentified officer filed a separate complaint saying Wind exhibited “conduct unbecoming of an officer” during the traffic stop. The complaint also alleged Wind had falsified grounds for probable cause in order to make an arrest at a traffic stop, and therefore challenged Wind’s integrity and truthfulness, according to court filings.

The citizen’s complaint was investigated by Wind’s superior officer, while the other officer’s complaint was investigated by Internal Affairs. Then-Police Chief Tim Adams ultimately found both complaints were unfounded and closed the case.

Should names be divulged?

In February 2009, Wind asked to view the complete investigative files associated with the complaints. The city provided Wind with redacted documents about two years later.

Wind filed suit in 2010, alleging the city was violating state and city laws that entitled him to see all the information in his personnel file.

After a trial court agreed, the city appealed to the state Court of Appeals. That court sided with the original decision, though one judge on the three-member panel offered an opposing view.

Court of Appeals Judge Chris Dillon suggested in written remarks that divulging such information discourages law enforcement officers from reporting one another’s bad behavior. He referenced an uphill battle that internal police investigations face due to the “blue wall” – the tendency of police officers to be uncooperative with investigations of fellow officers.

Wind has acknowledged one of his motives in learning the identities of the two accusers is “so he can sue them,” Dillon noted in his comments.

“I believe that because of the threat of a lawsuit and also safety concerns … divulging the names of complainants would have a chilling effect on police officers and others reporting misconduct, and would affect (the police chief’s) ability to manage his department effectively.”

McGuinness, Wind’s attorney, said Wind is completely within his rights to sue someone who made a false complaint against him.

“If (the complaint) is unlawful, the law provides for that,” he said.

He also said police officers, like any other municipal employees, should be able to know the details of accusations made against them when the complaint case has been closed.

“People accuse police officers on a daily basis of all sorts of allegations,” said McGuinness. “Police officers in North Carolina have historically been able to retrieve that information, so they can determine how to deal with it.

“I’ve never seen a police officer denied that right, until we got to Gastonia.”

You can reach Michael Barrett at 704-869-1826 or twitter.com/GazetteMike.